Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (108822)	5/1/2000 11:35:00 AM
From: Scot	Read Replies (5) of 1575728

RE:"I do draw the line here. If you look back through my posts, you could hardly find a more anti-MSFT person. But the DOJ and lawyers running all over the tech industry scare me more than MSFT." Joe, you are one of the few (many) here that get's it. All you have to be is someone that's been in business and dealt with Lawyers and the government to see the real danger here. Down here in Fla...the Lawyers that prosecuted the tobacco companies wanted a nice $billion cut out of the deal. The tobacco money was supposed to go to reimberse the state for tobacco related care costs...well a lot of it went to a lot of other things. All the States want is a big money grab. So do the Lawyers. Those with the "get Billy" attitudes are thinking very small here. Wall Street knows the score. Why do you think the NASDAQ sold off 40%. Not just Microsoft. I know YOU know...but a lot of others are sheep that should have their eyes opened... Jim, I don't disagree with you about the tobacco cases. Those were money grabs by trial lawyers; the states willingly went along because of the $$. Nobody likes cigarette companies and no one is crying any tears for them or the prospect that people may stop smoking because of higher taxes (a somewhat dubious principle behind the settlement). But tell me what the states receive out of MSFT breakup? And two, where are the trial lawyers? I don't think this situation is anyway or how comparable...unless the suggestion is that because lawyers and the government are involved...that we should be read between the lines. It seems clear to me that: 1. MSFT has monopoloy power. As has been said many times before, that is NOT a crime. 2. But, MSFT has apparently used this power in an anti-competitive manner, hence a violation of the antitrust laws. Did anyone read the findings of fact that stated that MSFT used monopoly pricing for Win98? Here's a snip: Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that Microsoft felt that it had substantial discretion in setting the price of its Windows 98 upgrade product (the operating system product it sells to existing users of Windows 95). A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 ? there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable ? but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price. I know I bought that upgrade..but only because I needed the USB support which was not available in '95. That's the kind of real-world example which (to me, at least) emphasizes the problems with monopoloy power (and pricing). -Scot

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next